METHODOLOGY: This study was designed as a parallel, double blind, randomized controlled trial where symptomatic mature permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly treated with full pulpotomy using one of 3 calcium silicate-based materials (ProRoot MTA, Biodentine and TotalFill). Full pulpotomy was performed, and haemostasis was achieved via a cotton pellet moistened with 2.5% NaOCl. A 3-mm layer of the calcium silicate-based material was randomly placed as the pulpotomy agent through a block randomization process followed by a resin-based composite restoration. Postoperative periapical radiograph was taken. Clinical and radiographic evaluation were completed after 6 months and 1 year. The patient and evaluator were blinded to the type of materials used. Pain levels were scored preoperatively and 7 days after treatment. Effect of potential prognosis factors including gender, age, diagnosis, bleeding time and type of caries were also analysed.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four teeth in 146 patients received full pulpotomy and were randomly assigned to either the tested or control material through block randomization technique (50 MTA, 50 Biodentine and 64 TotalFill). The age ranged from 10 to 70 years. The diagnosis was irreversible pulpitis in 112 teeth (72%) and reversible pulpitis in 28 teeth (28%). The majority of patients presented with severe pain, during the first week 96.9% reported complete relief of pain or mild pain. Four cases had immediate failure. At 6 months the overall success rate was 92.2%, over 1 year 156/164 teeth attended follow-up with 12 failures (2 restorative failures and 10 endodontic failures), the overall success of pulpotomy at 1 year was 92.3% (144/156); 91.8% in MTA, 93.3% in Biodentine and 91.9% in TotalFill with no significant difference amongst the groups and no side effects observed. No significant association was evident between outcome and the investigated variables.
CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year success rate of full pulpotomy did not differ significantly between Biodentine pulpotomy, TotalFill pulpotomy, and MTA pulpotomy. The study was registered with clinical trials; registration number (NCT04345263).
METHODOLOGY: STROBE guidelines were used to design a study using 60 periodontal ligament samples obtained from healthy lower premolars where extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons. Prior to extraction 40 of these premolars were equally divided into four groups and root canals were prepared using different systems: Mtwo, Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V. Ten premolars were prepared with hand files and served as a positive control group. The remaining 10 premolars where extracted without treatment and served as a negative control group. All periodontal ligament samples were processed to measure the expression of SP, CGRP and their receptors by radioimmunoassay. Kruskal-Wallis and Duncan tests were performed to determine statistically significant differences between the groups for each variable.
RESULTS: Greater expression of all the peptides measured were found in the hand-file preparation group, followed by the Reciproc Blue, Mtwo, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V groups. The lower SP, CGRP and their receptors values were for the intact teeth control group. Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences amongst groups (p
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).
METHODS: Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I2 = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years.
DISCUSSION: Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.
CONCLUSION: This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).